Refusal to Vaccinate Child Gets Mom Jail Time: A Deeper Analysis

“I want to make it perfectly clear. We’re leaving here today. Dad’s picking the child up and he’s going to be vaccinated regardless of what Mom did or didn’t do.”

These were the words of Oakland County judge Karen McDonald during the open minutes of the recent court room proceedings that continue to grab international headlines. Metro Detroit’s Rebecca Bredow, the Mom, now sits in an Oakland Country jail with a criminal record forever attached to her name. Her 9-year-old son is now in temporary custody of his father who is ordered by the court to bring the child up to date on the boy’s vaccination status, which will be up to eight vaccines “…as rapidly as medically necessary.”

Unfortunately in America, the end result of cases like Bredow’s are becoming more and more common.

Some are saying Bredow refused to vaccinate her child and is getting what she deserved but is it really that simple? The mainstream, corporate media narrative is attempting to paint a picture that Bredow’s case is an uncommon, one-and-done occurrence. The narrative is also suggesting that the family court process, when vaccination status is concerned, is a stone solid justice machine based on 'settled vaccine science.' The reality is that the judge and the court are taking a known and dangerous medical risk with another person’s child that they have no right to take. Do courts have the right to order an unavoidably unsafe medical intervention like vaccination in custody cases?

Joel Dorfman of Michigan for Vaccine Choice, a group that advocates for parents’ rights to refuse vaccines told the Detroit Free Press, “If this child is injured as a result of being given eight immunizations, who do you think is going to take care of the child? The judge?”

According to Judge McDonald, Bredow’s case is about her refusal to follow court orders she previously agreed to. McDonald ruled Bredow was in criminal contempt for not following a 2016 agreement to vaccinate her child. However Bredow says that her attorney at the time signed the order and advised her not to worry since she had filed state waivers and vaccine exemptions each year in Michigan for her child. In Michigan, parents or guardians of children enrolled in public and private schools are required to attend an educational session before they are granted waivers.

Lecturing from the bench, Judge McDonald told Bredow “I understand you love your children. But what I don’t think you understand is that your son has two parents, and dad gets a say,” Her statement seems reasonable yet it is important to note that Bredow has primary caregiver status. Digging deeper into the information of the case, Judge McDonald’s recent ruling gives physical custody of the child to the ex-husband James Horne. In the past, Child Protective Services did an investigation on Horne and the case was confirmed as a Category 3 revealing a preponderance of evidence against him which the court knew about.

What about medical expert testimony? Although Bredow’s case didn’t involve the testimony of an expert witness or medical professional, this tactic is often a nonstarter in US courts. The courts don’t decide and rule on the science, their job is to weigh the evidence. For each doctor or expert witness brave enough to go on record against the safety of vaccines in a given case, there are many more doctors who are will testify for them. In addition, all US health agencies and organizations still toe the line for the false ‘safe and effective’ vaccine narrative and refuse to factor in any new or highly relevant information that says otherwise.

During the recent ruling, Judge McDonald appeared to be reading from a prewritten statement when handing down her decision suggesting that she did not factor in the day’s testimony and dialogue. If that is the case, perhaps McDonald’s prewritten decision was in response to the attention Bredow drew to the case by going to the media. Section 600.1715 of Michigan’s Revised Judicature Act of 1961 states:

“If the contempt consists of the omission to perform some act or duty that is still within the power of the person to perform, the imprisonment shall be terminated when the person performs the act or duty or no longer has the power to perform the act or duty…”

The “act or duty” to vaccinate Bredow’s 9-year-old child was ordered by the court to be done by the ex-husband. In addition, Bredow no longer had the power to perform the act or duty in question. It seems that, given the language of the act, Bredow’s jail time was handed down as a warning and a lesson rather than a necessary legal measure.

Call To Action: Please Sign the Petition

To: Judge Karen McDonald and Governor Rick SnyderRe: Court Ordered arrest and imprisonment of Rebecca BredowDate: October 9, 2017All around the US, parents are witness to an epidemic of vaccine injury, as evidenced by the fact that The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) has paid out over $3.7 billion in damages to families with vaccine injured members.There are some relevant facts of which should be made aware: 1 vaccine is given on a single day (Miller, 2016):

"AbstractAlthough health authorities including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) claim that childhood vaccines are safe and recommend combining multiple vaccines during one visit, a review of data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows a dose-dependent association between the number of vaccines administered simultaneously and the likelihood of hospitalization or death for an adverse reaction. Additionally, younger age at the time of the adverse reaction is associated with a higher risk of hospitalization or death."

Miller, NZ. 2016. Combining childhood vaccines at one visit is not safe. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 21:47-49. http://www.jpands.org/vol21no2/miller.pdf

(2) Vaccine safety science in the US, including studies conducted or funded by CDC and vaccine manufacturers, is scandal-ridden. See Chatom Primary Care v. Merck (Case number 2:12-cv-03555), for example, in which two former Merck employees have alleged that they were told to falsify the efficacy data for Merck’s Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine. They allege that antibodies against the mumps virus from rabbits were added to human serum samples to increase the apparent effectiveness of the MMR vaccine; those data were in fact submitted to the FDA, Merck received continuation of their contract, edging out competition.

(3) CDC Scientist William Thompson has alleged that his supervisors removed results showing a positive association between on-time MMR vaccination and autism in two clinical groups. Thompson’s statements will be mailed to you under separate cover.

(4) All vaccines are watched for safety issues in post-market surveillance studies. When these studies find no safety issue, the resulting clinical studies are hailed by vaccine proponents as “science”. When the studies find issues, they are rejected and downplayed as mere “correlation studies”. Nevertheless, they are studies. Retrospective studies are used based on vaccine injury reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Thus, all individuals who choose to vaccinate are human subjects in a massive clinical study. Under US Federal Regulations, all individuals in clinical studies are entitled to informed consent. The FDA states, “Post-marketing surveillance is a necessary component of vaccine safety monitoring” and because vaccine pre-clinical trials are relatively small and controlled, “previously unstudied components of a patient’s social or medical history may be risk factors which could impact the outcome of vaccination and contribute to the development of adverse events” (Post-marketing surveillance for adverse events after vaccination: the national Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System).

Most of the studies conducted on vaccine safety rely on post-marketing surveillance using weak “association studies” with data from passively collected data sources (such as VAERS). Patients are not informed that they, or their children are, in fact, participating in a large, shoddily-run, non-randomized retrospective clinical trial. This practice is widespread, and violates provisions of the National Research Act [Title II, Public Law 93-348], Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research [45 CFR 46] and revisions of various regulations, rules, and laws ([21 CFR 50, [21 CFR 56], [45 CFR 46 Subpart D], [10 CFR 745].

Pregnant women and fetuses are afforded special protections by [45 CFR 46 Subpart B], and children are afforded additional protections by [45 CFR 46 Subpart D]. Yet the rights of pregnant women and fetuses are violated with each and every vaccine administered to them because not only is there a paucity of pre-licensing clinical trials, no vaccine is actually licensed for use to protect fetuses, and pregnant women are not told any of this as they are pressured to get vaccinated (FDA: Vaccines For Use in Pregnancy).Of note, in the Common Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects ("Common Rule")

[10 CFR 745] Sec 745.103(b)(3), none of these rights were revoked by any subsequent legislation, including [21 CFR 50.24], which allows the relaxation of requirements for informed consent during emergencies. In fact the Common Rule re-asserted safeguards both for informed consent, and for special protections against coercion:

§46.116 General requirements for informed consent.Except as provided elsewhere in this policy, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by this policy unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject's legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution or its agents from liability for negligence.“When some or all of the subjects are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, such as children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons, additional safeguards have been included in the study to protect the rights and welfare of these subjects.”

Here we provide the relevant text of the Nuremberg Code which offers protection under international law to all individuals from enrollment in clinical trials without their informed consent, and stresses the rights of patients to refuse:

“Permissible Medical ExperimentsThe great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.

The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.

The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.”

Rights to Informed Consent or Refusal of Medical ProceduresUnder US Law, all individuals, and legal wards (custodians) of children have the right to choose or refuse medical procedures. The doctrine of informed consent is based upon the right of every individual to determine what shall be done to his or her body in connection with medical treatment. To exercise this right, the patient is entitled to information of a sufficient nature to allow him or her to make an informed decision on whether or not to consent or refuse treatment. Because patients are entitled to this information, physicians have a duty to make reasonable disclosures to their patients about the risks associated with proposed treatment. The duty to obtain a patient's consent for treatment rests on the patient's treating physician. Hospitals, nurses, surgical assistants, and referring physicians do not owe this duty to their patients. The treating physician's duty to obtain a patient's informed consent cannot be delegated. The duty is not eliminated, lessened, or spread by having the hospital nurse secure the patient's consent prior to the procedure.

Here we provide to you the rules governing informed consent for medical procedures in the State of Michigan (R 330.7003):R 330.7003 Informed consent.

"Rule 7003. (1) All of the following are elements of informed consent:(a) Legal competency. An individual shall be presumed to be legallycompetent. This presumption may be rebutted only by a court appointment of a guardian or exercise by a court of guardianship powers and only to the extent of the scope and duration of the guardianship. An individual shall be presumed legally competentregarding matters that are not within the scope and authority of the guardianship.

(b) Knowledge. To consent, a recipient or legal representative must have basic information about the procedure, risks, other related consequences, and other relevant information. The standard governing required disclosure by a doctor is what a reasonable patient needs to know in order to make an informed decision. Other relevant information includes all of the following:

(i) The purpose of the procedures.(ii) A description of the attendant discomforts, risks, and benefits that can reasonably be expected.(iii) A disclosure of appropriate alternatives advantageous to the recipient.(iv) An offer to answer further inquiries.(c) Comprehension. An individual must be able to understand what the personal implications of providing consent will be based upon the information provided under subdivision (b) of this subrule.(d) Voluntariness. There shall be free power of choice without the intervention of an element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, including promises or assurances of privileges or freedom. There shall be an instruction that an individual is free to withdraw consent and to discontinue participation or activity at any time without prejudice to the recipient.(2) A provider shall establish written policies that include procedures for evaluating comprehension and for assuring disclosure of relevant information and measures to ensure voluntariness before obtaining consent. The policies and procedures shall specify for specific circumstances the types of information that shall be disclosed and steps that may be taken to protect voluntariness. The procedures shall include a mechanism for determining whether guardianship proceedings should be considered.(3) Informed consent shall be reobtained if changes in circumstancessubstantially change the risks, other consequences, or benefits that were previously expected.(4) A written agreement documenting an informed consent shall not include any exculpatory language through which the recipient, or a person consenting on the recipient's behalf, waives or appears to waive, a legal right, including a release of a provider or its agents from liability for negligence. The agreement shall embody the basic elements of informed consent in the particular context. The individual, guardian, or parent consenting shall be given adequate opportunity to read the document before signing it. The requirement of a written consent shall not eliminate, where essential to the individual’s understanding orotherwise deemed advisable, a reading of the document to the individual or an oral explanation in a language the individual understands. A note of the explanation and by whom made shall be placed in the record along with the written consent.(5) A consent is executed when it is signed by the appropriate individual.History: 1979 AC; 1998 AACS."

In consideration of these laws and Codes, we assert that:

(1) With the unlawful detention of Rebecca Bredow, and the decision to usurp her right to choose for her child “X”, the state has enjoined as actors in the violation of informed consent for medical research on the safety of vaccines, and further,

(2) The Court has, with events leading up to Judge McDonald’s order to detain and imprison Rebecca Bredow, engaged in activities that are designed to coerce Rebecca Bredow to make a decision against her better judgement;

(3) The State of Michigan has, by following the order of Judge McDonald to arrest and imprison Rebecca Bredow, prevented her from exercising her international, federal and state-afforded rights to decide whether her child, X, should receive any, some, or no vaccines, and unlawfully denied her certain freedoms to which she is entitled under the laws of the State of Michigan and the United States of America;

(4) The State of Michigan has, by allowing her ex-husband to participate in the act of vaccinating X, countermanded the custodial decision handed down to Rebecca, in which she was given the rights, duties and responsibilities of primary custodial parent.

We are deeply concerned about Rebecca Bredow’s, and all citizens’ freedom to work, live and act according to the liberties afforded to her by the US Constitution and its Amendments. We are gravely concerned over the actions of the State of Michigan resembling those of a Police State, with arbitrary actions and issuances from the Court which show contempt for the right of parents to make medical decisions for and on behalf of their children. We would like to register, with the Court and with the Governor’s Office, a message that the State of Michigan should stand down on the issue of state-forced vaccinations; that morally and legally the State of Michigan should defend, not impinge upon parent’s rights to choose medical procedures; that the State of Michigan will be morally and legally responsible for any injuries to any children that state-forced vaccinations incur upon the population, and the freedom-loving people everywhere are deeply concerned about how far the State of Michigan will eventually go in the matter of State-forced medical tyranny.

We ask:

(1) That from this day forward, in all cases of in which questions legal custody are being decided or contested, that the Court see the wisdom in deciding on the custody issues first, independent of the question of whether the child is to be vaccinated, and then allow the custodial parent to exercise their right to choose, or refuse, to vaccinate their child. This will secure and guarantee parents’ rights and set the correct precedent for jurisprudence on this matter. These rights are provided by the State of Michigan to all citizens, including those engaged in custodial disputes.

(2) That you immediately order the release of Rebecca Bredow and any and all other citizens who are currently imprisoned for willfully exercises their rights to choose or refuse medical procedures.

This website is for information purposes only. By providing the information contained herein we are not diagnosing, treating, curing, mitigating, or preventing any type of disease or medical condition. Before beginning any type of natural, integrative or conventional treatment regimen, it is advisable to seek the advice of a licensed healthcare professional.